I cannot argue on numbers here since I do not have the data (and no time/desire to try dig it out), so let me assume your calculations are correct for the sake of simplicity. If so, then it would still be better for an airline to do things differently. Negative image also has financial costs, which you neglect in your analysis. And CX likely does create a negative impression here (regardless of marginal costs being negligible or substantial). As someone already noted, upgrading at the gate would solve the problem (if needed, they can be pre-assigned in advance, but without letting passengers know). Customers will be happy, airline won't incur extra costs.

You're getting a free upgrade for their convenience. There's absoliabsono further entitlement to the benefit of the upgraded class. It baffles me that people are in fact this entitled. Not even sure what's worse, that you think you should get free lounge access on top of an already amazing freebie or that you think your negative sentiment as a result of your unreasonable entitlement is going to have absolutely any measurable impact on CX's bottom line

I’m not sure that there is a legitimate argument here - free upgrade to j and you should be happy. Most op ups will likely have status / Lounge anyway. Anyone who doesn’t would be very grateful for a j seat.

You're getting a free upgrade for their convenience. There's absoliabsono further entitlement to the benefit of the upgraded class. It baffles me that people are in fact this entitled. Not even sure what's worse, that you think you should get free lounge access on top of an already amazing freebie or that you think your negative sentiment as a result of your unreasonable entitlement is going to have absolutely any measurable impact on CX's bottom line

1. Lounge access should be determined by class of ticket and status in alliance/airline. Period. Once we start excluding op-up business, for example, some other group gonna be discriminated next. Some brilliant marketing specialist comes up with an idea that sale economy should be excluded, then those booked on awards or flying with partners. All of a sudden, one day it may be you

2. Cutting costs is perfectly reasonable and may be required, but it doesn’t mean doing that without thinking through consequences. There is a perfect and easy solution not to give lounge access to op-ups AND not to make customers unhappy (you may think it’s baseless or stupid, but come on, who cares, we discuss business model here and not ethics): give operational upgrades only at the gate, at least for non-elites. Problem solved, everyone happy.

2. Once again, it helps no one to mix your, mine or someone’s personal ethics and business strategy. As a matter of fact, explicitly throwing into face of customers “no lounge for upgraded” proclamation will inevitably upset some. We may disagree on percentage or reasonability, but it does not matter, unless percentage of affected is totally negligible. However you gotta count not only those who might get affected directly, getting upset for being denied a lounge access after op-up (indeed, I assume, very few would – for reasons given above), but also indirectly affected – those who will take this info into account for making bookings.
CX is nothing unique, it’s operating in a highly competitive market. EVA, JAL or China Airlines, for example, offer comparable product in every regard. So if, for example, I find myself in a position of choice between several carriers with comparable products and prices, would I favor an airline that explicitly announces I won’t be allowed to the lounge if upgraded? All given equal, I will book EVA instead. (Of course when we book award tickets, things are different, but much more people book with cash and are not fanatically loyal to any airline.) In this case I may never actually be affected by the policy, but airline business is affected

IMO very, very few get upgraded without holding elite status, and those who are, are usually upgraded at the gate. So it looks very questionable how much airline actually saves (not allowing non-elite op-ups that are upgraded in advance) vs a negative impact on image that is not limited to those actually affected.

IMO very, very few get upgraded without holding elite status, and those who are, are usually upgraded at the gate. So it looks very questionable how much airline actually saves (not allowing non-elite op-ups that are upgraded in advance) vs a negative impact on image that is not limited to those actually affected.

The argument is relatively moot. This "no lounge for op ups (or no F lounge if upgraded an unentitled)" has been the CX policy for the decade + I've been flying, and there has never been an issue with it. It is only an issue now because a HK guy became a minor celebrity in the tabloids recently with his tantrum about not getting the lounge with an upgrade. I'm not sure if you read or understand Chinese, but the response to him locally has ranged between amusement to "he is an embarrassment to Hong Kong", to quote one talking head. Except here in this thread only, I cannot say I've heard an ounce of support. I don't think these last 10 years CX has been losing any goodwill with the policy, and ironically has gained some local sympathies by the entitled behavior of that guy. And this thread only came about because of the language CX added to clarifytheir existing (admittedly, unwritten) policy, which in turn only came about because of that guy in the papers.

I don't think anyone is going to change their mind if it's the right marketing / goodwill move or not. We have a difference of mind. I can live with that.

But I can assure you the math makes no sense with CX paying cash to the lounge operator. Especially since CX went to the CIV upgrade system, whereby indeed elites are sometimes bypassed for upgrades in favor of the black box CIV. CX flies premium planes to TPE, for example 77H and 77A which can each have over 60 J + F seats. You can have flights where 30-40 pax are upgraded and many won't have elite status. CX configurations skew very premium, but those planes fly everywhere, including one hour flights to TPE and 90 min flights to MNL.

And of course, even with elites in F, often Golds (OWS) are upgraded. It's disingenuous to say "they already have lounge access". Sure, but they have J lounge access only. To go to F, that costs CX more cash. Same idea.

Anyway I realize nobody's mind is going to be changed. But CX has always done this, and it has never been an issue. I don't really see it changing. They're just clarifying formally so they have some text to prevent a situation like the one I refer to above. If it was written down, the guy would've backed down and the heated situation would've been over instead of escalating.

The argument is relatively moot. This "no lounge for op ups (or no F lounge if upgraded an unentitled)" has been the CX policy for the decade + I've been flying, and there has never been an issue with it. It is only an issue now because a HK guy became a minor celebrity in the tabloids recently with his tantrum about not getting the lounge with an upgrade. I'm not sure if you read or understand Chinese, but the response to him locally has ranged between amusement to "he is an embarrassment to Hong Kong", to quote one talking head. Except here in this thread only, I cannot say I've heard an ounce of support. I don't think these last 10 years CX has been losing any goodwill with the policy, and ironically has gained some local sympathies by the entitled behavior of that guy. And this thread only came about because of the language CX added to clarifytheir existing (admittedly, unwritten) policy, which in turn only came about because of that guy in the papers.

I don't think anyone is going to change their mind if it's the right marketing / goodwill move or not. We have a difference of mind. I can live with that.

But I can assure you the math makes no sense with CX paying cash to the lounge operator. Especially since CX went to the CIV upgrade system, whereby indeed elites are sometimes bypassed for upgrades in favor of the black box CIV. CX flies premium planes to TPE, for example 77H and 77A which can each have over 60 J + F seats. You can have flights where 30-40 pax are upgraded and many won't have elite status. CX configurations skew very premium, but those planes fly everywhere, including one hour flights to TPE and 90 min flights to MNL.

And of course, even with elites in F, often Golds (OWS) are upgraded. It's disingenuous to say "they already have lounge access". Sure, but they have J lounge access only. To go to F, that costs CX more cash. Same idea.

Anyway I realize nobody's mind is going to be changed. But CX has always done this, and it has never been an issue. I don't really see it changing. They're just clarifying formally so they have some text to prevent a situation like the one I refer to above. If it was written down, the guy would've backed down and the heated situation would've been over instead of escalating.

Looks to me, the classical discussion (or hate/love relationship, if you want to call it that way), between the have's and not-have's.

Those at the not-have side consider they are entitled to the "wealth", because it is available and as such, the acquiring of "wealth" should be free.

Those at the have side have the simple approach, that the not-have's should "work" to obtain the wealth items.

Given the world consists of significantly more not-have's then have's, it's simply a voting issue, until everything is spread evenly and nobody is any longer prepared to do any work to obtain "wealth". Oops, communism......

The argument is relatively moot. This "no lounge for op ups (or no F lounge if upgraded an unentitled)" has been the CX policy for the decade + I've been flying, and there has never been an issue with it. It is only an issue now because a HK guy became a minor celebrity in the tabloids recently with his tantrum about not getting the lounge with an upgrade.

So this is why CX now put it in writing? I was wondering why this comes up now. I thought it has always been the policy (at least as far back as 2008 when I experienced it first hand).

Looks to me, the classical discussion (or hate/love relationship, if you want to call it that way), between the have's and not-have's

Well, I have never been in a situation of getting op-up, but being denied the lounge (and as I noted, I consider it very unlikely to happen), so there is nothing personal here for me. I just think that CX policy is stupid (regardless of percentage of customers being for and against it), since there is a simple solution that allows CX not to offer lounge and at the same time avoid any chance of making customers unhappy about that – upgrade at the gate (i.e. announce upgrades at the gate, regardless of when they were actually assigned). And introducing or enforcing further a stupid policy doesn’t make any positive impression.

As I remember, I might have been upgraded to J when flying CX, not having active oneworld Sapphire at that time and when upgrade was given in advance: when I had a booking in PE, and due to change of the aircraft I had been relocated to J. I am absolutely sure I got the lounge access then, but cannot say for sure whether I had Sapphire that time or not (likely not, since at around that time the possibility to assign topbonus number to CX bookings vanished). And I think I was once upgraded to J when having Sapphire (either from Y or PE), but it allowed me to use CX arrival lounge in HKG, which was otherwise unavailable for Sapphire elites.
So in my experience, op-ups gave me lounge access.

However, these were extremely rare cases. Most of op-ups I had on CX, as well as some other carries, were given when I had an elite status (on EVA as *A Gold, on Jet Airways as Etihad Gold, on Hong Kong Airlines as Fortune Wings Gold). Even these were usually given at the gate, rather than in advance, or in the lounge. I.e. if I were not in the lounge, but randomly moving around the terminal, I won't even know I had been assigned an upgrade.

@barracuda93 What you are saying is "if you give me op-up, you should give me a full set of experience of the higher class" while I believe most FTer here agree that you get op-up is simply because there's not enough seat in your booked cabin so the airline sits you in a better seat and that should be all what an op-up is about.

I won't and can't say your thinking is wrong or not (I know, capitalism is built on greediness of human being) but at the very least most of us here won't take and agree your view that sitting you in a better seat = offering you everything you entitled if you buy a ticket for that seat

@barracuda93 What you are saying is "if you give me op-up, you should give me a full set of experience of the higher class" while I believe most FTer here agree that you get op-up is simply because there's not enough seat in your booked cabin so the airline sits you in a better seat and that should be all what an op-up is about.

What if they op-up you and deny an onboard J service, offering you Economy meals instead and refusing to give "Business class headphones" to watch a movie? Still okay? Where is the borderline of acceptable discrimination?

I wonder why some people portray op-up cases as some kind of mercy graciously showered on us by airlines. Come on. Airlines oversell classes to earn more. No one forces them. It's not an accidental thing, but a financial managerial strategy. They want extra profits – they have associated costs. This is fair in the world of business.

It is nothing about me or you personally being "entitled" for specific service. J or F is a package product. It looks offensive when airline start discriminating here. What next? Deny a glass of champagne to you, because you booked with partner miles, while happily offering it to me, when I booked on cash? Or why do you think someone using miles from a credit card sign-up is equally "entitled" as a person paying huge chunk of cash? Or why a person who paid 300 USD for a multisegment ticket is equally "entitled" as another one who paid double price just for a single leg?

I do think it is okay for an airline to op-up a person and deny him/her the op-upped service, as the passenger does not pay for the service anyway. I cannot see any discrimination. However, I think the airline should let the passenger return to the ticketed class should he/she feel offended. IIRC, that did happen to CX (perhaps two decades ago) when they op-upped a couple to F, and they declined in order to sit with their friends in J, but the gate agent forced them to sit in F. I think they brought a lawsuit to CX. I believe there are going to be enough volunteers for op-up that they need not force a passenger to upgrade if he/she is not comfortable.

What if they op-up you and deny an onboard J service, offering you Economy meals instead and refusing to give "Business class headphones" to watch a movie? Still okay?

I'm pretty sure this has been done before on BA and QR, actually! And other airlines. While Cathay doesn't do this, I'm certain I've read about competitors offering the lower class of meal to op-ups.

However, CX does do a form of discrimination against op-ups in another, quieter manner as long as I've been flying them: they give last meal choice to op-ups. I have flown F every which way...cash, Cathay award, partner award, and op-up. Been op-upped multiple times in my life J-F on CX. I fully understand the drill that I'm going to get my meal choice last, even as a DM, which is technically not the way the SOP for DMs work. But I'm quite happy to accept my "lot" getting "stuck" in F when I paid for J. It just doesn't seem right for me to demand first meal choice in F (as I should otherwise receive, as a DM passenger), getting op-upped from J. This last meal choice for op-ups is definitely a form of discrimination, albeit a minor one. But discrimination nonetheless based on what I "should" receive if I got the normal experience.

I agree with your statement "where is the borderline of acceptable discrimination?" It's an interesting service thinking point. However, I do not agree with your implied logical jump: that the only answer must be black and white, to not discriminate even a smidgen, if an op-up occurs! Because I think this is essentially what you're saying, right? We cannot allow one ounce of discrimination because of the "slippery slope" argument. Pretty soon, passengers op-upped to F will be marched to the back of the plane to go to the restroom, or forced to eat crew meals and drink galley water, and so forth, the logic would flow.

The company must think about P&L somewhere in there. And their conclusion may be, some discrimination doesn't matter, or at least is outweighed by the benefits received from overselling, etc. You're saying any discrimination at all does matter, negatively from CX and they're foolish to do so. In my highly unscientific straw poll, I can say there is zero sympathy for the complaining tantrum passenger, and ironically sympathy for CX (which is hard, this day and age in HK). And at least in my small F example with myself above, such small discrimination as being the last to get a meal order taken definitely doesn't bother me, I will take the comfy F bedding and big seat thank you very much! So, if a little discrimination can be tolerated by some passengers like myself, then it is a fair question to ask maybe the airline can discriminate more. It may not sound very nice but this is the reality of business.

My offhand guess is customers are more than happy not to receive the higher lounge entitlement as an op-up, and this argument is kinda academic. (albeit...strangely fun and typical of FT!)

It looks like we're all massively overreacting here. So maybe this is just a redefinition of what an op-up is: you get everything of the upgraded class, except the lounge access. Maybe in the future they will take other things away too, who knows? These things change, and as airlines try to push more, sometimes passengers will push back - fly with other airlines, refuse op ups, etc. But until that happens, let's not classify this as "discrimination", as if somehow our civil liberties are being infringed upon.

What if they op-up you and deny an onboard J service, offering you Economy meals instead and refusing to give "Business class headphones" to watch a movie? Still okay? Where is the borderline of acceptable discrimination?

Yeah, it's OK. At minimum, I still get the upgraded seat. In other words, net-net, I am better off than if this upgrade did not come my way. Would it be better with lounge access and J headphones? Sure. But I'm not worse off.

Otherwise, am I being discriminated if I am upgraded to J but I don't receive the J class amount of miles and club points?

Quote:

Originally Posted by barracuda93

I wonder why some people portray op-up cases as some kind of mercy graciously showered on us by airlines. Come on. Airlines oversell classes to earn more. No one forces them. It's not an accidental thing, but a financial managerial strategy. They want extra profits – they have associated costs. This is fair in the world of business.

No one forced them to upgrade you - they could just easily bump you off instead and upgrade someone else. Again, net-net I will be better off being upgraded regardless of the "restrictions" imposed upon my upgraded status.

What if they op-up you and deny an onboard J service, offering you Economy meals instead and refusing to give "Business class headphones" to watch a movie? Still okay? Where is the borderline of acceptable discrimination?

I wonder why some people portray op-up cases as some kind of mercy graciously showered on us by airlines. Come on. Airlines oversell classes to earn more. No one forces them. It's not an accidental thing, but a financial managerial strategy. They want extra profits – they have associated costs. This is fair in the world of business.

It is nothing about me or you personally being "entitled" for specific service. J or F is a package product. It looks offensive when airline start discriminating here. What next? Deny a glass of champagne to you, because you booked with partner miles, while happily offering it to me, when I booked on cash? Or why do you think someone using miles from a credit card sign-up is equally "entitled" as a person paying huge chunk of cash? Or why a person who paid 300 USD for a multisegment ticket is equally "entitled" as another one who paid double price just for a single leg?

Because one is upgraded to a business class seat and not a business class ticket. What next, ask for J class club points? The borderline is the other fare paying customers would not be affected by the differentiation.
The inflight environment is captive and if a business passenger hears about someone gets denied certain service, they'd surely notice, wonder and maybe question. That's why the champagne and headphones wouldn't be withheld, no worries However op-up special meal is supposed to remain original class (due to logistics issue). And when discrimination does exist - like DM water - some fellows said it would get awkward with non-status seatmate.
Lounge is different however, because those who don't go in do not affect the entitled passengers.
When you buy J or F it's a package for sure. When you are offered op-up you are offered the seat only. Some KA operates 2-class service with a 3-class A330, where the back J cabin may be served as economy - and those (mainly high tier members) seated there would still receive economy meals. That's a proof that seat and class of service package isn't always a bundle.
Entitlement is unrelated to price, it's the contract you made when you paid.
Therefore, my two cents is "you get what you pay for; if you get more, keep it low profile."

that did happen to CX (perhaps two decades ago) when they op-upped a couple to F, and they declined in order to sit with their friends in J, but the gate agent forced them to sit in F. I think they brought a lawsuit to CX.

You're saying any discrimination at all does matter, negatively from CX and they're foolish to do so. In my highly unscientific straw poll, I can say there is zero sympathy for the complaining tantrum passenger, and ironically sympathy for CX (which is hard, this day and age in HK). And at least in my small F example with myself above, such small discrimination as being the last to get a meal order taken definitely doesn't bother me, I will take the comfy F bedding and big seat thank you very much! So, if a little discrimination can be tolerated by some passengers like myself, then it is a fair question to ask maybe the airline can discriminate more. It may not sound very nice but this is the reality of business.

Please don't take me here to be yet another "discrimination alarmist"

I won't mind being offered the meal in the end of the "queue", I actually experienced that myself (quite naturally front seats were occupied and I have been seated in the rear portion of J cabin) and had zero discomfort. I agree with you this is natural.

Note that I never demanded lounge access for op-ups as such. If airlines maths doesn't allow for lounge access offered to those few non-status lucky op-ups, no problem, announce their upgrade at the gate only. My point is – avoid pissing off people unnecessarily by showing they do not deserve to get a proper product (and we don't even have to argue if they actually "deserve" it). Ultimately for business reasons, we can forget ethics here.